DescentBB

CUDA wrote:

Captain double standard wrote:ok, I'll accept that. But, what if the marching orders came from Christie, or he was aware of the plan being created by his asst Chief of Staff and his old High-School buddy on the Port Authority commission(the dude taking the Fifth yesterday PM)?

and as of yet it hasn't been proven that it has, but you seem quite willing to tie him directly to it and accuse him of the death of an elderly woman. and what if all the controversial things that the IRS did came from Obama, some how I don't think you'd have a problem with that. Hypocrisy

don't understand my use of the word, "if", CUDA? No one, me included, is suggesting anything certain, beyond the fact that this matter is far from fully sorted out, from who and what was involved, down to motives. Once again, I note, you run like a little child to your tired old rants about Obama. Why?
Oh, and I missed the ad hominem attack that seems stock-in-trade for you when someone ignores your childish Obama hate-on drivel. Nice touch.

callmeslick wrote:I note, you run like a little child to your tired old rants about Obama. Why?

for the same reason you choose to repeat lies like they are facts(NYPost Benghazi if it doesnt ring a bell)and continually post threads about Republicans

Oh, and I missed the ad hominem attack that seems stock-in-trade for you when someone ignores your childish Obama hate-on drivel. Nice touch.

Thx I learned from the master. I've been watching you for several years now and on both forums, your the master at deception and distortion. and ad hominem attacks are your specialty. I notice how you don't seem to like it though. people that dish it out as often as you don't like it when it come back at them. unfortunately I dont have the experience at insulting people that you do on the forums. so I bow to your obvious experience and superiority on that issue

callmeslick wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote: but Hillary not only let FOUR American citizens die (for supposed political reasons- and thank god no others died)- one was our ambassador!

and what, pray tell, could she have done to save them?? I mean, she was working with the budget given by the Congress, and had to allocate severely limited funds. Once again, I LOVE how this becomes a Hillary/Obama thread. You all haven't had enough pages to lay out your lame Bengazi case already?

Meh, 4 Americans died. Get over it- that's your line slick?

I guess I'll "get over it" if a group of 'youths' decide to target you for a knockout game and you end up dead from a brain hemorrhage. I mean, the police and EMS don't have the budget to patrol or take you to the hospital due to those stingy republicans in city council.

ThunderBunny wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote: but Hillary not only let FOUR American citizens die (for supposed political reasons- and thank god no others died)- one was our ambassador!

and what, pray tell, could she have done to save them?? I mean, she was working with the budget given by the Congress, and had to allocate severely limited funds. Once again, I LOVE how this becomes a Hillary/Obama thread. You all haven't had enough pages to lay out your lame Bengazi case already?

Meh, 4 Americans died. Get over it- that's your line slick?

not really. My 'line' such as it is, is that is was a tragic event. It MIGHT have been avoidable, but that would have taken FAR more robust security in place, and I strongly suspect the CIA didn't want it known that much of a presence was there at all, let alone a 'robust security' presence. Look the world is a nasty place, bad stuff happens. But, my bottom line is that NO ONE, not the admin, nor Congress, nor the CIA, nor the military, did a damn thing to CAUSE the harm to those people, and likewise NO ONE did anything past the predictable smokescreening of a CIA post after the fact.

I guess I'll "get over it" if a group of 'youths' decide to target you for a knockout game and you end up dead from a brain hemorrhage. I mean, the police and EMS don't have the budget to patrol or take you to the hospital due to those stingy republicans in city council.

once again, you wish me harm. Thanks again for reminding me, and us all here, how truly small a person you are.

CUDA wrote: I've been watching you for several years now and on both forums[/quoteI dont have the experience at insulting people that you do on the forums......

well that has to be one of the creepiest uses of the 'no, you are' defense I've ever seen, CUDA. Wow.

once again, you wish me harm. Thanks again for reminding me, and us all here, how truly small a person you are.

If you're telling people to 'get over' Benghazi, you've basically said the same thing.

That dereliction of duty (if not essentially voluntary manslaughter) on the part of our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy when it came to NOT sending in the resources necessary to protect our ambassador and his compatriots SIMPLY to NOT ADMIT that terrorism was behind the attack FAR exceeds the crimes Richard Nixon committed. NOBODY died as a result of Watergate.

The state department, Susan Rice AND the PRESIDENT LIED repeatedly about Benghazi to the AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Of course- this is just the new normal I suppose. He's the Liar-in-Chief along with the rest of the current administration.

You can KEEP your President if you like, slick. Just make sure you stick him up somewhere the sun don't shine.

The thing that bothers me most about all this Christie business is the lack of good jokes on this forum. C'mon, this is a goldmine!


"Think Chris Christie is the man to clear up the gridlock in Washington? Think again..."

<dramatic music plays>

Bridge-gate 2014!

Oh, and TB, he's OUR President, you don't have the first clue about the details on Bengazi, and I don't see Obama going anywhere until Hillary is sworn in.......

The first clue slick was the Libyan security forces disappeared just before the attack.

I hate to make jokes like this, but if Christie makes it out of this mess and goes on to be president it will give new meaning to the phrase "too big to fail."

<rimshot, kick, cymbal splash>

He's here all week, folks.......try the veal!

this thread is why I don't come here much...

Thanks Obama.

Christie has demonstrated his ability to be president by how he handles weighty problems.

Chris Cristie really knows how to throw his weight around.

Wanna be president of the United States Chris? Fat chance!

reserved

woodchip wrote:reserved

well, that is different.....

I don't know about Hillary but it looks like Christie can stomach the job of being President

That's the spirit guys. Good work joking it up.

Seems Christie's problems are getting worse:

"Washington (CNN) -- Just days after dismissing two top advisers for their roles in the George Washington Bridge scandal, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is facing questions over the use of Superstorm Sandy relief funds.

CNN has learned that federal officials are investigating whether Christie improperly used those relief funds to produce tourism ads that starred him and his family."

I guess the presumptive nominee by the Democrats for Republican presidential candidate is now flushed down the toilet.

callmeslick wrote:snoopy, this is about blatant abuse of power to punish people(and not, I strongly suspect anything to do with the mayoral endorsement either). If that isn't germane to someone wishing to be President, I don't know what is.

And, to Woody's point, yes, running for major office, or even posturing for same, gets one under a microscope. Same issue, in a way, as Phil Robertson and TV celebrity. Now, as I point out 'Chubby' always has faced an image problem around being a bully, and abuse of office is a major issue(ask Nixon).

I'm not saying that I'm okay with what happened.... I'm saying that the partisanship is showing through a little too much. (By the way, it is on your part, too.) If he was a "D" this story would be about some aide went rogue.

By the way, the Benghazi case is a good counter example, as much as you hate it.... in that case it's been a steady dose of "prove Obama/Clinton was involved" while for "bridgegate" it's been a steady dose of "prove Christie wasn't."

snoopy wrote:

By the way, the Benghazi case is a good counter example, as much as you hate it.... in that case it's been a steady dose of "prove Obama/Clinton was involved" while for "bridgegate" it's been a steady dose of "prove Christie wasn't."

snoopy nails it!

woodchip wrote:

snoopy wrote:

By the way, the Benghazi case is a good counter example, as much as you hate it.... in that case it's been a steady dose of "prove Obama/Clinton was involved" while for "bridgegate" it's been a steady dose of "prove Christie wasn't."

snoopy nails it!

simplified to that level, perhaps there is some analogy. My point was that in Benghazi, it was NO ONE'S intent that anyone be harmed, whereas in the bridge incident, there was a conspiracy(clearly, the email exchange proves as much) to do harm to the very people one swears to protect.

Only harm intended was to block traffic. So to paraphrase Hillary Clinton, "Intended or not intended, what difference does it make".

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

snoopy wrote:

By the way, the Benghazi case is a good counter example, as much as you hate it.... in that case it's been a steady dose of "prove Obama/Clinton was involved" while for "bridgegate" it's been a steady dose of "prove Christie wasn't."

snoopy nails it!

simplified to that level, perhaps there is some analogy. My point was that in Benghazi, it was NO ONE'S intent that anyone be harmed, whereas in the bridge incident, there was a conspiracy(clearly, the email exchange proves as much) to do harm to the very people one swears to protect.

Lol! Really?!?

All those Libyan surface to air missile launchers Hillary had the CIA shipping to Syrian rebels (read: al Queda included) were just for movie props I suppose!
No, no one is going to be hurt by those things...

And when the ambassador was getting ready to go provide the cover for that op with his presence in Benghazi and had requested more security, citing the sudden increase in Islamo-fascist terrorists occupying buildings all around the compound he was destined for, there was no intent to send him anyway without upgrading the security. Noooo.... It was....hmmm...what does Obama call those kind of failures...oh yea...a glitch. Or even better, they tried to blame it on the sequester budget cuts!! Lol!!

Yea, Christy's possible role in the traffic jam is MUCH bigger than State Department failures in Benghazi!!

woodchip wrote:Only harm intended was to block traffic. So to paraphrase Hillary Clinton, "Intended or not intended, what difference does it make".

because, as you seem to be blissfully unaware, the nature of the blockage, coupled with the volume over the Bridge meant:

1. Tens of thousands were suddenly slowed to whatever destination, with no warning
2. Emergency vehicles were impacted.
3. The bridge is a high-priority potential terrorist target, according to the Feds. Further, it was the only available truck route in and out of New York
during 9/11, so gridlock matters even more than usual.
4. The 'harm' that was 'intended' was to the Mayor or other politicians, it was merely inflicted upon random citizens used as pawns, by people in the
public trust.


for these reasons, and more, blocking traffic on the GWB is both extremely dangerous, excessively inconvenient, and, potentially in violation of Federal Law, were certain authorities not properly notified.

yeah, Woody, makes no difference at all......

Funny how when Reagan was in office the left jumped all over him for the Contra affair, yet no Ambassador died because of it. Didn't hear a peep from the press about Hillary and Obama running arms to Islamist terrorist groups.

Oh and slick, I suspect this was not the first time lanes were closed on the bridge due to construction or accidents.

Secretly funneling arms to militias is a little bit different than doing it through Congress. I don't agree with doing it either way, but doing it illegally and then having someone like Oliver North fall on the sword is quite a bit different. We shouldn't be giving arms to ANY of these groups because it always comes back to bite us, but don't equate Reagan with Obama with respect to this. Not even close.

CobGobbler wrote:Secretly funneling arms to militias is a little bit different than doing it through Congress. I don't agree with doing it either way, but doing it illegally and then having someone like Oliver North fall on the sword is quite a bit different. We shouldn't be giving arms to ANY of these groups because it always comes back to bite us, but don't equate Reagan with Obama with respect to this. Not even close.

I agree completely with your premise but I don't know that it applies to the man carried surface to air missile systems!
I'd be curious to hear it from Congress, if they approved delivering those systems to the Syrian insurgents, especially after documenting the recipients were in large part foreign al Queda types who surfaced in Syria!

We have a special program in place to rush in and scoop them up every where in the world governments fall apart before they reach unstable types....like the very people Hillary sent them to!
So I find it hard to believe that whatever legislation you are thinking of included those systems...or even the surreptitious means of delivering them that led to the death of our people in Benghazi!

I think the devil in those details is laughing at your interpretation of that bit of political spin...

But lets skip that for a moment and accept your point at face value.

Do you agree with slick that causing a traffic jam on the GW bridge from Jersey to Manhattan is inherently more harmful to human life and limb than delivering surface to air missiles into the hands of terrorists in the middle east is?

I know those Jersey people are tough and all that but really? You aren't going to really drink that gulp of Kool-Aid are you? Drinking that stuff will rot your brain!

CobGobbler wrote:Secretly funneling arms to militias is a little bit different than doing it through Congress. I don't agree with doing it either way, but doing it illegally and then having someone like Oliver North fall on the sword is quite a bit different. We shouldn't be giving arms to ANY of these groups because it always comes back to bite us, but don't equate Reagan with Obama with respect to this. Not even close.

So secretly funneling arms to Mexican drug lords don't count in your book. I wonder how the press would of reacted to Fast & Furious if a Republican was in office especially when those arms came back and killed our agents inside of America.

woodchip wrote:Funny how when Reagan was in office the left jumped all over him for the Contra affair, yet no Ambassador died because of it. Didn't hear a peep from the press about Hillary and Obama running arms to Islamist terrorist groups.

Oh and slick, I suspect this was not the first time lanes were closed on the bridge due to construction or accidents.

the latter is not the same as purposefully shutting down the lanes and not contacting the authorities involved. I'll leave others to address the Ronnie Raygun thing, as it is completely impertinent.

Will Robinson wrote:Do you agree with slick that causing a traffic jam on the GW bridge from Jersey to Manhattan is inherently more harmful to human life and limb than delivering surface to air missiles into the hands of terrorists in the middle east is?

excuse me, but where on Earth did you read that I felt arming terrorists is less important? Let's face it, Christie isn't(at least I hope) in any position to arm anyone with anything of the sort, but the bridge incident speaks to one thing: USING THE PUBLIC TRUST AND HIGH OFFICE TO PUNISH PEOPLE YOU DON'T LIKE AND USING PUBLIC RESOURCES TO DO SO. So, in Christie's case, should he still be considered a serious Presidential candidate,
one has to look at this(and seemingly many other) small abuse of power and wonder how he would conduct himself with vastly more power. Nothing more, nothing less. No matter of this is more important than that, no apples to oranges comparisons, just a look at the character of the man and those he chooses to surround himself with.

I don’t know, I’m still finding it a little odd that someone took revenge on voters after winning, this is not something I believe came from the top, as Christie doesn’t come off as that stupid. This is probably a culture and environment kind of thing that led to making stupid decisions…just like the IRS thing.

(and making the shutdown more difficult than it needed to be, but I wont bring that up because people are in denial mode)

Stupid petty people.

Couple of things to respond to here:

To Will:

My guess is the bill was short on specifics, probably said "military aid" and that can be stretched pretty far. I disagree completely with giving any of these groups military aid. It only comes back to be used on us. I think America has been short-sighted on this for a very long time. Only I know is that it wasn't done the same way Reagan did it in the 80s. But I completely and 100% disagree with it being done in either case. Second, read the first post I made on this topic. I think Christie has handled this pretty well, he put himself in a corner but I see this going away after a few cycles if nothing else comes out. Other politicians should pay attention to how he handled this. I don't see it as being the same, hence why I'm not up in arms about it. Giving weapons to crazy people is not on the same level as a douche political move, no.

To Woodchip:

I have no idea why someone at the ATF thought doing these types of operations was a good thing, but it started before Obama. Look up operation wide receiver if you want, I'm not going to blame Bush for it. I do not believe the President has tacit knowledge of every operation by every agency at all times, that's trying a little too hard to hate someone. This whole program is utterly ridiculous, hard to even find the right word for how stupid it is. Whoever thought these types of operations were a good idea should be locked in the stocks in times square and everyone should get to throw a rock. How dumb can you be?

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Do you agree with slick that causing a traffic jam on the GW bridge from Jersey to Manhattan is inherently more harmful to human life and limb than delivering surface to air missiles into the hands of terrorists in the middle east is?

excuse me, but where on Earth did you read that I felt arming terrorists is less important? Let's face it, Christie isn't(at least I hope) in any position to arm anyone with anything of the sort, but the bridge incident speaks to one thing: USING THE PUBLIC TRUST AND HIGH OFFICE TO PUNISH PEOPLE YOU DON'T LIKE AND USING PUBLIC RESOURCES TO DO SO. So, in Christie's case, should he still be considered a serious Presidential candidate,
one has to look at this(and seemingly many other) small abuse of power and wonder how he would conduct himself with vastly more power. Nothing more, nothing less. No matter of this is more important than that, no apples to oranges comparisons, just a look at the character of the man and those he chooses to surround himself with.

Ok Captain Nuance, you figure it out or you lose the rank:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

snoopy wrote:

By the way, the Benghazi case is a good counter example, as much as you hate it.... in that case it's been a steady dose of "prove Obama/Clinton was involved" while for "bridgegate" it's been a steady dose of "prove Christie wasn't."

snoopy nails it!

simplified to that level, perhaps there is some analogy. My point was that in Benghazi, it was NO ONE'S intent that anyone be harmed, whereas in the bridge incident, there was a conspiracy(clearly, the email exchange proves as much) to do harm to the very people one swears to protect.

The problem is, to you, and your kind, is Benghazi is just a word, just a name of a potential political scandal.
However, in Benghazi, and everywhere else ruled by reality instead of Dem poli-think, it is much more! It is the place that our State Department, under Hillary's direction, did some really bad stuff! Really much worse stuff than blocking traffic. Really deadly stuff that trumps an old lady dying after a day stuck in traffic!!

So when the analogy came up you had a choice, recognize it for what it was in the real world, or spin it according to the Dem political playbook.

To Woodchip:

CobGobbler wrote: I have no idea why someone at the ATF thought doing these types of operations was a good thing, but it started before Obama. Look up operation wide receiver if you want, I'm not going to blame Bush for it. I do not believe the President has tacit knowledge of every operation by every agency at all times, that's trying a little too hard to hate someone. This whole program is utterly ridiculous, hard to even find the right word for how stupid it is. Whoever thought these types of operations were a good idea should be locked in the stocks in times square and everyone should get to throw a rock. How dumb can you be?

I agree with except for one thing. Christie immediately fired staff members. So far I don't recall Obama firing anyone. Not for F&F, The IRS scandal nor the totally botched website fiasco. If he did perhaps I could start to respect him.

you figure all the folks that 'resigned' after F and F or the IRS thing did so, voluntarily?

Who resigned?

woodchip wrote:Who resigned?

Lol!
Like Lois Lerner was announced to have been " let go" but that was after paid leave and 3 days before her term was up anyway. AND SHE WAS THEN PROMOTED by Obama!!
I believe she is in charge of some Obamacare department now....not even joking there either.

slick. He is a practicing illusionist. Emphasis on practicing....